Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Motor hysteresis in a sequential grasping and pointing task is absent in task-critical joints

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a prior study (Schütz et al. in Exp Brain Res 2016. doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4608-6), we demonstrated that the cognitive cost of motor planning did not differ in a vertical pointing and grasping task. It was unclear whether the similar cost implied that both tasks required the same number of independent degrees of freedom (IDOFs) or that the number of IDOFs did not affect motor planning. To differentiate between both cases, a reanalysis of the prior data was conducted. The number of IDOFs in the pointing and grasping tasks was computed by factor analysis. In both tasks, two IDOFs were used, which was the minimum number required for position control. This indicates that hand alignment in the grasping task did not require an additional IDOF. No conclusions regarding the link between the cognitive cost of motor planning and the number of IDOFs could be drawn. A subset of task-critical joint angles was not affected by motor hysteresis. This indicates that a joint’s susceptibility to motor hysteresis depends on its relevance to the task goal. In task-critical joints, planning cost minimization by motor plan reuse is suppressed in favor of the task goal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Best separation for the main effect of 'drawer' could also have been used as the optimization criterion. Rotations for this criterion were similar: 109.11° ('sequence') versus 104.98° ('drawer') for pointing and 90.30° ('sequence') versus 89.54° ('drawer') for grasping. As all joint angles were equally affected by drawer height, an elimination of the main effect of 'drawer' from one of the factors was impossible. Therefore, the main effect of 'sequence' was used as the optimization criterion.

References

  • Bernstein NA (1967) The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Diedrichsen J, White O, Newman D, Lally N (2010) Use-dependent and error-based learning of motor behaviors. J Neurosci 30:5159–5166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson DA (1993) Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristic and statistical approaches. Ecology 74:2204–2214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jax SA, Rosenbaum DA (2007) Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: evidence that the dorsal stream does not only control visually guided actions in real time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:425–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jax SA, Rosenbaum DA (2009) Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: rapid decay of dorsal stream information. Neuropsychologia 47:1573–1577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelso JAS, Buchanan JJ, Murata T (1994) Multifunctionality and switching in the coordination dynamics of reaching and grasping. Hum Mov Sci 13:63–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenberg K (1944) A method for the solution of certain problems in least squares. Quart Appl Math 2:164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt D (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J Soc Ind Appl Math 11:431–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RP (1962) A general approach to nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometrika 27:397–415. doi:10.1007/bf02289646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RP (1967) Nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometric Corporation, Richmond

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulenbroek RGJ, Rosenbaum DA, Thomassen AJWM, Schomaker LRB (1993) Limb-segment selection in drawing behavior. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A Hum Exp Psychol 46:273–299

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mulaik SA (2009) Foundations of factor analysis, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum DA, Jorgensen MJ (1992) Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control. Hum Mov Sci 11:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum DA, Cohen RG, Jax SA, Weiss DJ, van der Wel RPRD (2007) The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley’s legacy. Hum Mov Sci 26:525–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rostoft MS, Sigmundsson H, Whiting HTA, Ingvaldsen RP (2002) Dynamics of hand preference in 4 year-old children. Behav Brain Res 132:59–68

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz C, Schack T (2013a) Influence of mechanical load on sequential effects. Exp Brain Res 228:445–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz C, Schack T (2013b) Motor primitives of pointing movements in a three-dimensional workspace. Exp Brain Res 227:355–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz C, Schack T (2013c) Prospective and retrospective effects in a virtual pointing task. Acta Psychol 142:314–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz C, Schack T (2015) Movement plans for posture selection do not transfer across hands. Front Psychol 6:1358

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz C, Weigelt M, Odekerken D, Klein-Soetebier T, Schack T (2011) Motor control strategies in a continuous task space. Mot Control 15:321–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz C, Weigelt M, Schack T (2016) Cognitive costs of motor planning do not differ between pointing and grasping in a sequential task. Exp Brain Res. doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4608-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt M, Rosenbaum DA, Hülshorst S, Schack T (2009) Moving and memorizing: motor planning modulates the recency effect in serial and free recall. Acta Psychol 132:68–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss DJ, Wark JD (2009) Hysteresis effects in a motor task with cotton-top tamarins (Sanguinus oedipus). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 35:427–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology ‘CITEC’ (EXC 277) at Bielefeld University, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology and Sports Science, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany

    Christoph Schütz & Thomas Schack

  2. Department of Sports and Health, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

    Matthias Weigelt

  3. Cognitive Interaction Technology, Center of Excellence, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

    Thomas Schack

  4. CoR-Lab, Research Institute for Cognition and Robotics, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

    Thomas Schack

Authors
  1. Christoph Schütz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Weigelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Schack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Schütz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schütz, C., Weigelt, M. & Schack, T. Motor hysteresis in a sequential grasping and pointing task is absent in task-critical joints. Exp Brain Res 235, 703–712 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4831-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4831-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation